This memo outlines proposed changes to N.D.R.App.P. 28 in response to the December 1, 1998, amendment to Fed.R.App.P. 28.

Subdivision (a) contains requirements for the appellant's brief. Unlike the federal rule, North Dakota does not require a corporate disclosure statement, a jurisdictional statement except in an application for the exercise of original jurisdiction, or a certificate of compliance with the type-volume limitation. The proposal eliminates the requirement for facts which are in dispute to be identified. The proposal adds requirements for a summary of the argument and a statement of the applicable standard of review.

Subdivision (b) contains requirements for the appellee's brief. The proposal avoids the need to routinely include certain aspects of a brief. Unless dissatisfied with the appellant's statement, the appellee does not need to file a jurisdictional statement, a statement of the issues, a statement of the case, a statement of the facts, and statement of the standard of review.

Subdivision (c) addresses the reply brief of the appellant. The proposal also addresses the reply of an appellee who has cross-appealed. Unlike the current rule, the proposal also spells out what a reply brief must contain.

Subdivision (d) addresses references to parties. The proposed changes are stylistic and follow the federal amendment.

Subdivision (e) concerns references to the record. Unlike the federal amendment, the proposal allows references to either the appellant's or the appellee's appendix. Unlike the federal rule, N.D.R.App.P. 30 also allows the appellee to file an appendix. The language in the federal amendment is not followed as it appears overly complicated and contains provisions not previously adopted in N.D.R.App.P. 28.

Subdivision (f) addresses reproduction of statutes, rules, regulations, and other sources. The proposed changes are stylistic and follow the federal amendment.

Subdivision (g) currently governs the length of briefs. Like the federal amendment, the proposal transfers the length limitations to Rule 32. Rule 32 deals generally with the format for a brief.

Subdivision (h) addresses briefs in a case involving a cross-appeal. Unlike Fed.R.App.P. 28(h), the designation of the parties is defined in N.D.R.App.P. 1. The language in the federal amendment is not followed because it is a re-write of provisions which were not adopted in North Dakota.

Subdivision (i) concerns briefs in a case involving multiple parties. The language in N.D.R.App.P. 28(i) is retained because it is easy to understand, and the federal language being re-written was not adopted in North Dakota.

Subdivision (j) is not currently in North Dakota's rule. The subdivision requires a party to advise the court of any significant authorities that come to a party's attention after a brief has been filed. Should North Dakota adopt this subdivision?